General Information
Kefar Ḥananya ware is the ceramic marker of Roman Galilee. Kefar Ḥananya ware is named for the site of Kefar Ḥananya, at which evidence for manufacture from the mid-first century BCE to the mid-fifth century CE (the Roman and early Byzantine periods) has been uncovered (Adan-Bayewitz, 1993). Kefar Ḥananya potters manufactured vessels for cooking and household use in seven general forms: (1) shallow wide-mouthed bowls (or pans), (2) bowls, (3) casseroles, (4) closed cooking pots, (5) jar-jugs, (6) jugs), and (7) small storage jars with a 7.0 cm diameter (Adan-Bayewitz, 1993). The wide-mouthed bowls and casseroles are the most well attested forms (Adan-Bayewitz, 1993). In contrast, the small storage jugs are only represented by two fragments, indicating that Kefar Ḥananya potters rarely produced storage containers (Adan-Bayewitz, 1993).
Distribution. At sites throughout the Galilee, all or nearly all of a household's cooking vessels were of Kefar Ḥananya ware (Adan-Bayewitz, 1993). Kefar Ḥananya’s central location meant that its potters could market their wares throughout the region (Adan-Bayewitz, 1993). As distance from the production center at Kefar Ḥananya increased, the amount of Kefar Ḥananya vessels decreased (Adan-Bayewitz, 1993). There is no correlation between the amount of KH ware and settlement size, which demonstrates that there was no special relationship with cities, but rather that KH ware was commonly used by all. This undermines earlier understandings of Galilean social organization in which urban centers exploited rural settlements (Adan-Bayewitz, 1993). Neither was the use of Kefar Ḥananya ware limited by ethnicity. Vessels were common at Jewish, pagan, and early Christian sites (Adan-Bayewitz, 1993), which shows that the same market routes and centers served all the populations of Roman and Byzantine Galilee.
Vessels of Kefar Ḥananya ware do appear outside of Galilee, most commonly in the central and southern Golan, where they account for more than 50% of the cooking wares found at Roman-period sites (Ben David, 2014). The appearance of Kefar Ḥananya vessels to sites east of the Sea of Galilee suggests regular contact between the two regions despite administrative borders (Ben David, 2014). It is worth noting, however, the absence of Golan-produced vessels in the Galilee, which suggests that market routes went primarily in one direction.
Vessel Quality. Kefar Ḥananya ware vessels were in high demand thanks to their light weight, careful workmanship, and reputation for durability and resistance to thermal stress (Adan-Bayewitz, 1993). Kefar Ḥananya vessels derive their durability and strength from their hardness—an average of 5 on the Moh’s scale—their small grain size, and the density of their fabric (Adan-Bayewitz, 1993). This fine grain, along with the careful workmanship, resulted in walls of even and uniform thickness, which in turn accounted for the ware’s thermal stress resistance as well as their ability to retain heat longer. For the Jewish population of Galilee, this last feature meant that KH vessels could be used to hold hot coals or ashes on the Sabbath without risk of breaking (Adan-Bayewitz, 1993). Thermal stress resistance would also have increased a vessel’s life span (Adan-Bayewitz, 1993).
Analytical studies. Kefar Ḥananya ware vessels have been repeatedly studied via various analytical techniques which have revealed many details of their manufacturing process over the centuries of production. INAA analysis of KH vessels found at Galilean sites shows a high degree of elemental homogeneity, which Adan-Bayewitz has named the Ḥananya Valley Group (Adan-Bayewitz, 1993). Direct elemental matches with Ḥananya Valley clays and wasters at the Kefar Ḥananya workshop site corroborates this as the ware's production center (Adan-Bayewitz, 1993). Other INAA studies have distinguished vessels of the Ḥananya Valley Group from vessels of identical forms made at other Galilean workshops as well as at workshops in the Golan Heights (Adan-Bayewitz, 1993). In a 2009 study, Adan-Bayewitz and colleagues demonstrated that by using INAA and high-precision XRF it was possible to identify trace element distinctions between vessels made at the main workshop site, thus opening up the possibilitiy of distinguishing the output of individual potters.
DescriptionWarm orange-brown in color (although a few examples are fired grey), with smooth surfaces, thin walls, and hard fired so that fragments give off a metallic clink when tapped. Extremely well levigated, with occasional medium round black (iron nodules) and fine ovoid white inclusions. Clay matrix is dense and homogenous; voids are few and small.
Fresh breaks are of red-dark clay with only about 2% voids. The inclusions are silt-sized angular quartz (about 25%-45%) with occasional limestone (5%). Other rare minerals are feldspars and opaque inclusions (1%).
This is a well defined and studied ware (Adan-Bayewitz 1993). It was mainly studied by NAA (Adan-Bayewitz & Perlman 1985: 203-17; Adan-Bayewitz & Perlman 1990: 153-72) however several petrographic studies have been performed on this material as well (Wieder & Adan-Bayewitz 1999: 327-41; Wieder & Adan-Bayewitz 2002: 393-415). Comparison of the NAA result with those of the TSPA showed that in large groups there is an advantage to TSPA but in dividing material originating from the same region into subgroups NAA performed better (Adan-Bayewitz & Wieder 1992: 189-205).
